News
Prime Minister blames Opposition for spreading ‘falsehoods’ about 20A

No attempt made to reduce powers of Auditor General or remove PM’s Office or Presidential Secretariat from AG’s purview
Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, yesterday, denied allegations that the Auditor General’s powers would be reduced by the proposed 20th Amendment.
pm Rajapaksa said that Constitutional provisions regarding the Auditor General had hardly come to public attention and thus the opposition was using that lack of knowledge to propagate various falsehoods.
Rajapaksa said that one of the main false claims was that the 19th Amendment had created an Audit Commission and that the 20th Amendment sought to abolish it.
The PM said in a media statement: “What the 19th Amendment made provision for was not an Audit Commission but only an Audit Service Commission. The Audit Service Commission does not carry out any auditing functions. It handles matters like the appointment, promotion, transfer and disciplinary control of members of the State Audit Service. Usually such matters pertaining to government servants are dealt with by the Public Service Commission. All that the creation of the Audit Service Commission achieved was to set up yet another Commission to do the work that was being done by the Public Service Commission.”
“Another false claim being made by the opposition is that the 20th Amendment seeks to remove the Presidential Secretariat and the Office of the Prime Minister from the purview of the Auditor General. From the very inception of the 1978 Constitution, the Presidential Secretariat and the Prime Minister’s Office have been under the purview of the Auditor General. The phrase “all departments of government” in Article 154(1) of the pre-19th Amendment Constitution brought the Presidential Secretariat and the Prime Minister’s Office under the purview of the Auditor General, he said. These institutions were always listed as government departments in the Government Financial Regulations. Quite apart from these two institutions, even the Office of Former Presidents is listed as a separate government department and all these institutions were always audited by the Auditor General.
“The inclusion of the Presidential Secretariat and the Office of the Prime Minister by name in Article 154(1), by the 19th Amendment did not achieve anything new. Even though they may have not been specifically mentioned by name, from the very inception of the 1978 Constitution, the Presidential Secretariat and Prime Minister’s Office had always been under the purview of the Auditor General. Even after the 20th Amendment reinstates the old article 154(1) which existed from the inception of the 1978 Constitution, in place of the so called ‘changes’ made by the 19th Amendment, the Presidential Secretariat and the Prime Minister’s Office will continue to remain within the purview of the Auditor General. Over the past decades, it’s the Auditor General who audited the Presidential Secretariat and the Prime Minister’s Office and not some private audit firm.
“Another falsehood being propagated is that state owned companies will be removed from the purview of the Auditor General by the 20th Amendment. However the auditing of state corporations and state owned companies (i.e. companies in which the state owns more than 50% of the shares) comes under Article 154(2) of the Constitution. Under the provisions of Article 154(2), the minister in charge of the subject can assign the auditing of a state corporation or a state owned company to a qualified audit firm.
“However before doing so, he is mandatorily required to obtain the concurrence of the Finance Minister and also to consult the Auditor General. After the minister in charge of the subject assigns the auditing of a state corporation or a state owned company to an audit firm in this manner, the Auditor General can issue a written notice to that audit firm informing them that he proposes to utilize their services for the performance and discharge of the Auditor-General’s duties in relation to that state corporation or state owned company, and thereupon that audit firm is mandatorily required to act under the direction and control of the Auditor-General.
“The content of Article 154(2), which existed from the inception of the 1978 Constitution, was not changed by the 19th Amendment. The content of Article 154(2) will not change under the 20th Amendment either. Therefore it can be said that the content of Article 154(2) has remained the same from the inception of the 1978 Constitution and will continue to remain so in the future as well. Hence the claim that state owned companies are to be taken out of the purview of the Auditor General, is a complete falsehood.”
“It is also being claimed by the Opposition propagandists that the 19th Amendment has stipulated that the Auditor General should be a ‘qualified auditor’ and that when the 20th Amendment reinstates the old pre-19th Amendment Article 153(1) this qualification requirement will be dropped and hence, after the 20th Amendment is passed, even an unqualified person can be appointed as Auditor General.”
“Constitutions are written on the assumption that those reading it will have basic common sense. The Constitution does not state anywhere that the person appointed as Attorney General or as a Supreme Court judge has to be a qualified lawyer. But those appointed as Attorney General, Auditor General or a Supreme Court judge will always have the required educational and professional qualifications without which they cannot function in those positions. All that the 20th Amendment seeks to do is to replace the changes made to the provisions relating to the Auditor General by the 19th Amendment with the provisions that existed before the 19th Amendment. The opposition has been unhesitatingly uttering every lie that comes to mind with regard to this matter because of the confidence that most people would not be familiar with these obscure provisions of the Constitution. It’s our duty to understand the facts of the matter and to defeat the unprincipled attempt being made by the opposition to mislead the people.”
News
NPP bags CMC in secret vote; SJB, allies disappointed with bureaucratic action

National People’s Power (NPP) councillor Vraie Cally Balthazaar yesterday (16) won a controversial secret vote to secure the mayoral seat at the Colombo Municipal Council (CMC). She received 61 votes while Riza Zarook, fielded by the SJB-led Opposition, obtained 54 votes.
Two votes were rejected. The CMC consists of 117 members and the winner needs to secure at least 59 votes. At the 6 May Local Government elections, the NPP won 48 seats in the CMC while the SJB had to settle for 29.
At the onset of yesterday’s proceedings, both the SJB and UNP demanded that an open vote should take place while the NPP asked for a secret vote. However, after noisy haggling over the issue for 30 to 40 minutes suddenly some Opposition members, and the NPP, declared they had reached consensus for a secret vote though some were heard insisting on an open vote.
The secret vote was conducted by Commissioner of the Department of Local Government of the Western Province, Sarangika Jayasundara. In terms of the Local Government law, the type of voting-‘open vote’ or secret vote, should be decided by a secret vote.
In the run-up to yesterday’s secret vote, both parties repeatedly declared they had the necessary numbers to secure mayoralty.
In a desperate move, the SJB reached an alliance with the UNP (13 seats), SLPP (5 seats) and People’s Alliance (1 seat) to garner support among the Opposition but couldn’t reach the target.
That bid had the support of former Presidents Mahinda Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesingh.
In spite of the SJB declaring that the Opposition at the CMC consisted of 69 councillors, the NPP reached consensus with many parties, and independent groups, thereby increasing its tally from 48 to 61 – two votes more than the required number.
The following political parties and independent groups won seats at the CMC: NPP (48), SJB (29), UNP (13), SLPP (5), SLMC (4), Independent Group 3 (3), United Peace Alliance (2), Sarvajana Balaya (2) Independent Group 4 (2) and Independent Group 5 (2). National People’s Party, National Freedom Front People’s Alliance, Democratic National Alliance, Independent Group 1 and Independent Group 2 won one seat each.
Having won the secret vote Balthazaar shook hands with Riza Zarook before declaring that all elected members bore responsibility to serve the people. The new Mayor emphasised the responsibility on the part of all 117 to work collectively for the betterment of the people.
The March 12 Movement has claimed that political parties/individuals are being bribed by those seeking to form administration in hung councils. The civil society grouping has said that while conclusive evidence remains limited, widespread public opinion suggests that financial incentives and other benefits may have influenced the support extended to various parties. Such perceptions, whether confirmed or not, do not bode well for the future of local governance, the group has said.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
News
Quality of private university degrees under scrutiny: PM

Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, on Saturday, said that a fresh review would be conducted of the quality of degrees awarded by private universities in Sri Lanka.
She said that concerns had arisen over the academic standards of some private universities, whose graduates recruited into the Sri Lanka teaching service. The issue had now been identified, and the Ministry of Education had already initiated a review process in response, the PM said.
The Prime Minister said so during a discussion held on Saturday (14) at the Ministry of Education with representatives of teacher and principal unions.
She said the recruitment of graduates had been approved by the previous government and it had been implemented in accordance with the provisions of the Teachers’ Service Minute.
Dr. Amarasuritya said that although those appointments were legally valid, the Ministry had begun reviewing the quality of education degrees offered by UGC-approved private universities and affiliated higher education institutions.
By Chaminda Silva
News
Ex-parte injunction against AAC vacated

Colombo District Judge Sandun Vithana recently issued an order vacating the ex-parte injunction previously granted against Automobile Association of Ceylon (AAC). The order was issued subsequent to the submissions made by the Counsel representing the Association, Executive Committee Members and Secretary.
This was in respect of Keerthi Gunawardena, former Vice President of the Association moving court against the AAC. Gunawardena obtained an ex-parte injunction that temporarily suspended the Association’s decision to terminate his Membership.
The Association’s Counsel told the court that Gunawardena had conducted himself in a manner undesirable and unbecoming of a Member at the 119th A.G.M. of the Association.
It was also noted that there were 37 formal complaints from Members regarding the incident in question. It was also emphasized that the termination of the Membership of Keerthi Gunawardena was made in strict accordance with the Consolidated Revised Rules in force at the Association. The Defence also argued that Gunawardena had provided misleading information to the Courts when seeking ex-parte injunction.
After carefully considering the submission from all parties the D.C. determined that the plaintiff had both suppressed and misrepresented material facts when he initially approached the Courts for relief.
It concluded that the ex-parte injunction should be vacated, thereby allowing the Association’s original membership termination decision to stand.
For the A.A.C. Kuvera De Zoysa P.C. led the team supported by Attorneys-at-Law Samuditha Kumarasinghe and Sanjana De Zoysa instructed by Attorney-at-Law Sanjay Fonseka.
For Association President Dhammika Attygalle, Ikram Mohamed P.C. appeared with Attorney-at-Law Charitha Wickrema. For the Executive Committee Members Chandaka Jayasundera, P.C. with Attorney-at-Law Imaz Imthiyaz, for the Association Secretary, Devapriya Hettiarachchi, Sanjay Rajaratnam P.C. appeared with Attorney at Law E.S.Jayasinghe.
The Plaintiff Gunawardena was represented by Attorneyat-Law Asthika Devendra instructed by W.M.D.M.B. Wasala.
-
Features4 days ago
They came, they won, they returned to Jaffna isles
-
News6 days ago
UK confirms ongoing war crimes investigation into British mercenaries in Sri Lanka
-
News4 days ago
ITAK candidate elected B’caloa Mayor as NPP seeks alliance with Pillayan
-
Opinion5 days ago
Prof. Dissanayake honoured for oustanding contribution to Sinhala literature
-
Features2 days ago
As I remember, from 50 years ago: the 75-80 Katubedda Engineering Batch
-
News5 days ago
Enhanced security for Israelis in Sri Lanka
-
Midweek Review6 days ago
‘Aragalaya’ could have been thwarted and GR’s presidency saved: Mahinda Siriwardana
-
Business6 days ago
Beyond the Numbers: The real costs and benefits of migration for migrant mothers